write an argument for or against the idea of using controlled fires to protect wild areas.

i don't want u guys to do it for me, i'm just asking how do i start

!

This really just depends on your stance. I'm not sure which side you've chosen to write, for or against using controlled fires to protect wild areas. However, the way I'd start is would probably be something like the following.

Explanation:

For -

Controlled fires are an effective way for us to stop wildfires from destroying more land than is necessary. [Explain your stance]

Against -

Controlled fires have a chance to stop a wildfire in it's tracks, however it can backfire and become the very wildfire it was meant to stop. [Explain your stance]

I personally am against this idea, so I'll help you start that argument and hopefully someone else will help you start the 'for' argument.

Using controlled fires to protect wild areas releases toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, and those chemicals can mix with the chemicals that are already in the atmosphere and become possibly deadly to the asthmatic population here on earth. Not to mention the fact that, while the idea of controlled fires is nice, we can't control the weather and that can (and has in the past) caused controlled fires to get out of hand.

i hope this helps at least a little bit!! :)

Explanation:

from the political point of view it could be said that the candidate   is an effective speaker because she takes a strong position on the issue. it is an open discussion but probably she is making a presentation and can choose which subjects she wants to address. she is very likely to attain her aim which is to convince voters to accept her proposal.